submitting any option in time with reference to a Government order, permitting such option, her pay was fixed/re-fixed. Her first higher grade was pre-poned from 01.07.1992 to 04.09.1991 and the date to come over to the new scale of pay, pursuant to the pay revision in 1993 was postponed from 01.03.1992 to 01.09.1993. No option form was found as part of the service records of the respondent. Therefore, the 3rd objection raised by the competent authority is sustainable, it was submitted. The learned Single Judge took the view that subsequently, the Government issued orders, enabling to opt all those who wanted to opt/re-opt. So, if there was anything irregular about her first option or the re-option, the respondent should have been alerted her in time so that she could have opted, based on the subsequent Government orders issued, enabling option and reoption. Therefore, the learned Single Judge held that the said objection is not sustainable. We find no reason to take a different view. Normally, in the absence of an option submitted in accordance with a relevant GO, no fixation will be allowed. Even assuming the same was done without a valid option, if the irregularity in the fixation of her pay was brought to her notice in time, she could have opted in the light of the subsequent Government Orders, enabling her to do
